|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 27, 2010, 9:16 PM
Post #2 of 24
(16363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
I'd be curious to see this go up against the Tokina 11-16 ATX 2.8. I know they're not really in the same category, but I don't shoot enough Ultra-Wide to get nitpicky.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 27, 2010, 9:17 PM
Post #3 of 24
(16362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have?
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 28, 2010, 12:29 AM
Post #5 of 24
(16316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have? The 2.8 IS. It is soooo sharp and clear. I highly recommend it. Best lens to capture peoples faces.
Yeah, I've been wuntzing one for awhile, but being out of work it was off the table. I'm hoping to get one in the next few months.
I was originally kicking around the idea of the Sigma generic, but now with the IS II out the price of the old IS to about the same as the Sigma. Of course, the new IS II looks pretty sweet. They're claiming 4 eVs of stabilization.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 28, 2010, 12:30 AM
Post #6 of 24
(16315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have? The 2.8 IS. It is soooo sharp and clear. I highly recommend it. Best lens to capture peoples faces.
Donnybox likes faceshots?
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 29, 2010, 7:56 PM
Post #7 of 24
(16256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 30, 2010, 12:04 AM
Post #9 of 24
(16225 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic. Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots. One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are.
I hate you.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 30, 2010, 12:48 AM
Post #10 of 24
(16211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic. Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots. One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are. I hate you.
Huh, why. I thought we were having a pretty reasonable and civil conversation. Am I missing something here or is that just a bit of BET frivolity.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 30, 2010, 8:52 AM
Post #11 of 24
(16151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I love my 80-200 Nikon lens. it's old, but works wonderfully.
For my wide angle, I use a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC and I am very happy with it.
I usually end up with Sigma lens over the Nikon lens because of the price differences. I will never buy another Tamroon ot Tokia. never liked any of the ones I've owned or used.
I have to say, a fish-eye lens has some appeal to me, but....
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 30, 2010, 2:34 PM
Post #12 of 24
(16132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic. Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots. One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are. I hate you. Huh, why. I thought we were having a pretty reasonable and civil conversation. Am I missing something here or is that just a bit of BET frivolity.
I thought I finally came to a final decision as to my next lens purchase. Not only did you get me second guessing, this option costs about 2X versus my other.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 30, 2010, 2:38 PM
Post #13 of 24
(16132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
guangzhou wrote: I love my 80-200 Nikon lens. it's old, but works wonderfully. [image]http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-af/D3S_5805-1200.jpg[/image] For my wide angle, I use a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC and I am very happy with it. [image]http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/Sigma-1020mm-f456-EX-DC-4329/images/Sigma-10_20mm.jpg[/image] I usually end up with Sigma lens over the Nikon lens because of the price differences. I will never buy another Tamroon ot Tokia. never liked any of the ones I've owned or used. I have to say, a fish-eye lens has some appeal to me, but....
I was considering that Sigma since it had a wider zoom than the Tokina but I'd prefer a faster lens, especially for a wide-angle which I'd probably be using in low light situations often. I have the Sigma 17-70 and it's a helluva lot better constructed than any of the Canon consumer lenses that I have. I just noticed that they have a 10-20 f/3.5, not cheap though... edit: nevermind, looks like the price dropped significantly. Dammit, back to the decision board.
(This post was edited by Arrogant_Bastard on Aug 30, 2010, 2:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Aug 30, 2010, 3:14 PM
Post #14 of 24
(16120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Hey Donnybox, which 70-200 do you have? The 2.8 IS. It is soooo sharp and clear. I highly recommend it. Best lens to capture peoples faces. Donnybox likes faceshots?
You may need the fisheye if you intend to take a pic of See Eye.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 30, 2010, 3:24 PM
Post #15 of 24
(16112 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
As an aside, in browsing these lenses I've noticed several articles calling out a multiplication factor - like the Sigma 10-20mm being a 2X lens. Seems funny that they're incorporating marketing tactics for the point and shoot crowd into SLR lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 31, 2010, 12:21 AM
Post #16 of 24
(16088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: guangzhou wrote: I love my 80-200 Nikon lens. it's old, but works wonderfully. [image]http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-af/D3S_5805-1200.jpg[/image] For my wide angle, I use a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC and I am very happy with it. [image]http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/Sigma-1020mm-f456-EX-DC-4329/images/Sigma-10_20mm.jpg[/image] I usually end up with Sigma lens over the Nikon lens because of the price differences. I will never buy another Tamroon ot Tokia. never liked any of the ones I've owned or used. I have to say, a fish-eye lens has some appeal to me, but.... I was considering that Sigma since it had a wider zoom than the Tokina but I'd prefer a faster lens, especially for a wide-angle which I'd probably be using in low light situations often. I have the Sigma 17-70 and it's a helluva lot better constructed than any of the Canon consumer lenses that I have. I just noticed that they have a 10-20 f/3.5, not cheap though... edit: nevermind, looks like the price dropped significantly. Dammit, back to the decision board.
My wide angle is the only lens I own that is not fast Glass. Everything else is 2.8 all the way through or better for fixed lenses.
When I bough a wide angle, I decided I didn't need the speed because of the amount of light it let's in. Also, what I should with wide angle usually doesn't require high speed glass.
To me, Sigma is the way to go. Good glass and affordable prices.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 1, 2010, 2:20 AM
Post #17 of 24
(16000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: philbox wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Perhaps I should have read the article first - didn't realize it was a true fish-eye. Though it seems you can switch between 180 and a normal ultra-wide... am I reading that right? You think you'd use a 180 for climbing shots? I could see the occasional trippy shot, but fish-eye is kind of a novelty pic. Yes, you're reading the article correctly. No, I con't see myself ever using the fisheye effect however you never know when an idea will present itself. I just like the idea that you can get the image superwide, you have some sort of contol over how wide you can go. I find myself wishing I could go wider sometimes with some of my shots. One finds oneself stuck in one position not being able to back up to capture more of the context. I'd like to get closer to the subject to capture emotion on the face but then also capture the wider context of where they are. I hate you. Huh, why. I thought we were having a pretty reasonable and civil conversation. Am I missing something here or is that just a bit of BET frivolity. I thought I finally came to a final decision as to my next lens purchase. Not only did you get me second guessing, this option costs about 2X versus my other.
Aha, I now understand completely. Just so you don't feel lonely, I hate you too, now doesn't that make you feel all gooey inside.  
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Sep 1, 2010, 5:06 AM
Post #18 of 24
(15983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
You guys are cute.
Everything you've read about the Canon 70-200 Mk II is true. I previously owned the extremely sharp 70-200 f/4 IS but the new version of the 2.8 IS does it even better. The two drawbacks are its price and weight but hell, you don't live forever.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 1, 2010, 8:07 AM
Post #19 of 24
(15967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I've got the 70 to 200 F2.8 IS, are you saying that the Mark 2 is far noticably better? I'm loving my 70 to 200, I don't want to have to buy another being that I reckon the existing one is good enough. I'll hafta have a lend of someone elses to compare.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Sep 1, 2010, 2:39 PM
Post #20 of 24
(15945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
I never owned or used the first version of the 2.8 IS so I can't compare directly. As I had mentioned my old 70-200 f/4 IS was very nice. The f/4 IS and non-IS are considered by many to be better than the 2.8 IS and non-IS. All I know is that my 2.8 IS II is better than my old lens...plus I rarely use my beloved 135L these days as the 70-200 does it just as well (except for f/2  ).
d.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Sep 1, 2010, 3:41 PM
Post #21 of 24
(15935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
dlintz wrote: You guys are cute.
Cute? We're fucking adorable.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Sep 1, 2010, 5:22 PM
Post #22 of 24
(15921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: dlintz wrote: You guys are cute. Cute? We're fucking adorable.
I know. I just didn't want you to get all big headed about it.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Sep 1, 2010, 5:44 PM
Post #23 of 24
(15913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
dlintz wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: dlintz wrote: You guys are cute. Cute? We're fucking adorable. I know. I just didn't want you to get all big headed about it. d.
How's your f/4 at shooting indoor sports? I have one of those cheap consumer 55-250 f/4-5.6, and it sucks. Granted I'm at 5.6 if zoomed in, but it's just not near fast enough. It was one of the reasons why I was looking at the f/2.8. It'd be nice to save some bucks with the f/4 but that seems kinda pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Sep 1, 2010, 7:29 PM
Post #24 of 24
(15899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: dlintz wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: dlintz wrote: You guys are cute. Cute? We're fucking adorable. I know. I just didn't want you to get all big headed about it. d. How's your f/4 at shooting indoor sports? I have one of those cheap consumer 55-250 f/4-5.6, and it sucks. Granted I'm at 5.6 if zoomed in, but it's just not near fast enough. It was one of the reasons why I was looking at the f/2.8. It'd be nice to save some bucks with the f/4 but that seems kinda pointless.
The only indoor sports I've shot is climbing comps. Even with the relatively slow action of climbing f/4 would be tough unless you had flash IMO.
If I'm shooting without flash (which is my preference) I usually go to primes (Canon 135L f/2 and Sigma 50 f/1.4).
d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
